Guns & Ammo blown away by Silver Eagle Group

[Chuckles]

imported post

hsmith wrote:

"Publicaly Renouncing" it means nothing IMO unless they void the agreement.

I agree. Words are cheap, otherwise I might as well believe President Obama is pro-gun and we have nothing to worry about for the next 4 years.

 

[deepdiver]

imported post

How do you guys propose that the new ownership of S&W go about voiding a nearly 8 year old never enforced agreement with the federal government by the prior ownership ? Should they publish a statement that says "Bad agreement by prior owners, we void you!" Should they sacrifice a chicken during the full moon and drip its blood over a copy of the document? The more time that passes without the feds attempting to enforce it, the better S&W's case to get it voided in court if enforcement is ever attempted, the current ownership's stated intent. Do they even have any other recourse to void the agreement? I don't know of any but perhaps some of the legal types on the forum can enlighten us on S&W's options.

 

[rlh2005]

imported post

My thoughts would be full disclosure. Start by visibly posting on their website the agreement, letters to the DOJ ending the agreement, and any other actions necessary to void it.

 

[jegoodin]

imported post

deepdiver wrote:

How do you guys propose that the new ownership of S&W go about voiding a nearly 8 year old never enforced agreement with the federal government by the prior ownership ? Should they publish a statement that says "Bad agreement by prior owners, we void you!" Should they sacrifice a chicken during the full moon and drip its blood over a copy of the document? The more time that passes without the feds attempting to enforce it, the better S&W's case to get it voided in court if enforcement is ever attempted, the current ownership's stated intent. Do they even have any other recourse to void the agreement? I don't know of any but perhaps some of the legal types on the forum can enlighten us on S&W's options.

I vote for the chicken sacrifice! (although PETA might come after us for it)

 

[67GT390FB]

imported post

nova wrote:

Now they just need to quit with the internal locks and the cost cutting measures (while their prices still increase btw) then I'd consider a new one.

ask and you shall receive, i was nearly floored when i saw it in a magazine article and actually held one at greentop but smith now offers i think 3 models.

Model 40 - S&W Classics -
1 7/8" - Blue, Color Case or Nickel


Small Frame (J) -
Model 642 - No Internal Lock

 

[deepdiver]

imported post

rlh2005 wrote:

My thoughts would be full disclosure. Start by visibly posting on their website the agreement, letters to the DOJ ending the agreement, and any other actions necessary to void it.

What legal ability do they have to end the agreement? The agreement has never been implemented/enforced but if they send such a letter to the DOJ is that going to lead to the DOJ attempting to enforce it? What other legal avenues do they have to void it? Why isn't self-voiding by laches sufficient? And for how many years should the new ownership dwell on this, make statements about it and waste bandwidth posting it when the people who made the agreement have not been part of S&W for nearly 8 years.

Reality Check: Sometimes when you buy a business you get stuck with some crappy decisions of the prior owners. As the new owner you often have no ability to get out of certain decisions or contracts until they expire/void per contract terms, as in this case apparently by laches or by some other means.

I prefer to focus on the fact that the British company that sold out to the anti-gunners in 2000 ended up losing about 60% of their investment in S&W, over $60 million

This S&W thing has been one of the most frustrating matters to me since I got back into the firearms community a few years ago. We complain about the emotional, illogical actions, responses and positions of the anti-gunners, but then on this matter people in the gun community give any irrationality of an anti-gunner a run for its money. If some part of the entity that made the agreement still owned S&W or if corporate leaders/management in the company had not been wholely purged, I would be with those still upset with S&W. As it is though, I have no problems buying from S&W if they have a product I decide I like and want. If they do something dirty again in the future I'll revise that position on the merits of those acts.

 

[Wolf_shadow]

imported post

deepdiver wrote:

rlh2005 wrote:

My thoughts would be full disclosure. Start by visibly posting on their website the agreement, letters to the DOJ ending the agreement, and any other actions necessary to void it.

What legal ability do they have to end the agreement? The agreement has never been implemented/enforced but if they send such a letter to the DOJ is that going to lead to the DOJ attempting to enforce it? What other legal avenues do they have to void it? Why isn't self-voiding by laches sufficient? And for how many years should the new ownership dwell on this, make statements about it and waste bandwidth posting it when the people who made the agreement have not been part of S&W for nearly 8 years.

Reality Check: Sometimes when you buy a business you get stuck with some crappy decisions of the prior owners. As the new owner you often have no ability to get out of certain decisions or contracts until they expire/void per contract terms, as in this case apparently by laches or by some other means.

I prefer to focus on the fact that the British company that sold out to the anti-gunners in 2000 ended up losing about 60% of their investment in S&W, over $60 million

This S&W thing has been one of the most frustrating matters to me since I got back into the firearms community a few years ago. We complain about the emotional, illogical actions, responses and positions of the anti-gunners, but then on this matter people in the gun community give any irrationality of an anti-gunner a run for its money. If some part of the entity that made the agreement still owned S&W or if corporate leaders/management in the company had not been wholely purged, I would be with those still upset with S&W. As it is though, I have no problems buying from S&W if they have a product I decide I like and want. If they do something dirty again in the future I'll revise that position on the merits of those acts.

+1

 

[riverrat10k]

imported post

My since 2000 purchased j-frame has no locks or safties. Just a 25lb trigger!:lol:

 

[AbNo]

imported post

Chuckles wrote:

AbNo wrote:

If someone can back this up, it will show my care for this place.

Man, and you thought seeing Smith & Wesson on the VCDL's Gun Owner Unfriendly Businesses list was weird!

Which brings up an interesting point: S&W has already openly sold out gun owners and dealers. Those of you who are screaming boycott at SEG, check your gun inventory and see if anything has "Smith & Wesson" stamped on it. I am hoping there aren't any hypocrites in this crowd.

Well, I have a S&W 22-A, but I bought that before I knew about their sordid history.

Damn shame, too, or else I'd have bought the Ruger instead.

 

[nova]

imported post

AbNo wrote:

Chuckles wrote:

AbNo wrote:

If someone can back this up, it will show my care for this place.

Man, and you thought seeing Smith & Wesson on the VCDL's Gun Owner Unfriendly Businesses list was weird!

Which brings up an interesting point: S&W has already openly sold out gun owners and dealers. Those of you who are screaming boycott at SEG, check your gun inventory and see if anything has "Smith & Wesson" stamped on it. I am hoping there aren't any hypocrites in this crowd.

Well, I have a S&W 22-A, but I bought that before I knew about their sordid history.

Damn shame, too, or else I'd have bought the Ruger instead.

My only S&W was made in the 1980s, before the company that sold out bought S&W, and before the current company started putting locks in them.

I'm clean

 

[Marco]

imported post

IMHO, holding the current owners of S&W responsible for the former owners misdeeds is akin to holding you responsible for your parents/grandparents misdeeds.

I currently own one post agreement firearm a 340PD and will be getting a S&W MP9 this weekend.
One is/was a gift the other I'm buying Nused.

 

[Citizen]

imported post

It occurs to me thatS&W is leaving their options open for the future.

Given the money involved and their LE market, I wouldn't be the least surprised if some savvy corporate lawyers have thought this through to the nth degree and decided that they have the greatest advantage or derive the best position from leaving it unvoided.

I'll leave it you all what that might mean. What would be the benefit of leaving it unvoided? (rhetorical question)

 

[Chuckles]

imported post

Agent19 wrote:

IMHO, holding the current owners of S&W responsible for the former owners misdeeds is akin to holding you responsible for your parents/grandparents misdeeds.

I disagree. Until S&W withdraws from the agreement, we have every reason to view them as a gun owners-unfriendly company. If Hitler has a grandson running around screaming there is nothing wrong with cleansing Jews from the face of earth (wait, is his name Ahmadinejad?), I suspect most Jews would have somewhat negative feelings toward him.

There are some rumors they have renounced/ended the agreement, I have yet to find any credible reference or a press release supporting such an event. It's an agreement signed with Smith & Wesson the company, not a particular owner, so the agreement doesn't magically vanish because of a change in ownership. That is common business practice. e.g. Would you expect your mortgage to disappear if your bank gets bought out?

 

[deepdiver]

imported post

Again, I ask the question: What legal remedy do those who think this should be "voided" think that S&W has to void it?? In other words, what legal process, except arguing such enforcement is barred by laches in court in the case that the fed would try to enforce it, do you think that the current ownership of S&W should/can follow to void this.

If there is no legal remedy or manner for them to void it except such a court challenge to an enforcement attempt then there is nothing they can do and the current owners and employees are just getting beaten up for buying and continuing operations of S&W.

 

[Citizen]

imported post

deepdiver wrote:

Again, I ask the question: What legal remedy do those who think this should be "voided" think that S&W has to void it?? In other words, what legal process, except arguing such enforcement is barred by laches in court in the case that the fed would try to enforce it, do you think that the current ownership of S&W should/can follow to void this.

If there is no legal remedy or manner for them to void it except such a court challenge to an enforcement attempt then there is nothing they can do and the current owners and employees are just getting beaten up for buying and continuing operations of S&W.

Unless I was prohibited from it, I would just send a declaration to the other party, in this case the government, rescinding the agreement.

Then I'dpress releaseit to the 2A world.

In that the agreement didn'tmention being perpetual that I recall, I see no reason they couldn't.

 

[Hochullain]

imported post

Talk to Silver Eagle employees to get the TRUTH about the Marquez family's lack of respect for teh industry and - more importantly - their CUSTOMERS